http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
THIS week's Associated Press headline may not say it all, but it comes
close: "White House Vandalism Still Debated."

All those saying "aye"--the Bush administration--have finally come
forward in the person of White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to offer a
public accounting of the crude mess--the sabotaged phones, damaged
computers, graffiti-covered walls, overturned desks and pornographic
pictures--members of the outgoing Clinton administration left behind for
members of the incoming Bush administration to dig their way out of. Only
now, four and a half months after the fact, the Great Clintonista Trashing
of the White House has emerged as a topic of "debate," a matter of one
man's--or, rather, one administration's--opinion. Or even worse, as
Democrats now clamor, it has suddenly been framed as an unfair, unfounded,
outright lie.

How did this happen? It all started back in January, after the first juicy
rush of vandalism reports from anonymous Bush sources dried up as word came
from on high that it was "time to move on"--and stop rubbernecking at
the carnage of the Clinton years. Not only were all those post-Clinton
post-mortems sucking up political oxygen, they appeared to strike the new
president as a matter of what used to known as--and this will sound quaint--
"bad form." As the White House edged itself away from the vandalism
story, Mr. Fleischer told the Washington Post, "All the White House
stories were aimed at moving forward. It was all in the context of drawing
reporters back from the story because that's what the president wanted."

The president, naturally, got what he wanted. The White House may never
have gone so far as to deny that any vandalism had taken place, but the
story shut down at the source. Given that the White House decided not to
document the damage--fear of "bad form" strikes again?--subsequent
inquiries by the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congress's investigative
arm, and the General Service Administration (GSA), which manages federal
property, were inconclusive. As the Washington Post reported, the GSA
"issued a letter saying it found no damage to White House real estate but
said it was not addressing possible damage to furnishings or equipment. The
GAO said it could reach no additional conclusions because of ' the
lack of records ... reported by the White House."

Far from inspiring President Bush's Democratic opponents to give a
cheer--pip, pip, Old Bean--for his innate sense of discretion and good
cheer, the "lack of records" has convinced them to claim that no
vandalism ever took place. As Joe Lockhart, one of Bill Clinton's press
secretaries put it, "If there was anything there, they should have put it
out at the time. Now, they're expecting us to just take their word for it."

(Spoken like a true Clintonista.) Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York
Democrat, has gone farther still, demanding that the Bush administration
apologize for having "deliberately misled the American people and smeared
the names of public servants who were guilty of nothing." And the outrage
only grows--as do the numbers of supposed victims. Jake Siewart, another
Clinton press secretary, recently told the Kansas City Star, whose
misinterpretation of the GSA's initial inquiry seems to have kickstarted
this whole phase of the vandalism story, "The White House has been
smearing a whole class of people without providing any evidence."

It is, of course, the White House that is now being smeared. "The White
House's continuing campaign of disinformation and possible violation of
federal law for noncompliance with a GAO investigation calls its
credibility--and its list of damaged property--into question," Mr. Weiner's spokeswoman Serena Torrey none-too-serenely told the Washington Post.

All of which has left Ari Fleischer bemoaning the administration's strange
predicament. "The White House bent over backward to make this issue go
away, to be gracious to the previous administration" Mr. Fleischer told
the AP. "We tried to be gracious, but the last administration would not
take graciousness," he said to the Washington Post.

Is graciousness really the culprit here? Certainly, it would have been
possible for the Bush administration to be gracious--and carry a big video
camera. The problem seems to be one of maturity, which may come as a
surprise given the relief of having a "grown-up" administration in
place. But, as President Bush has said, there is today a profound need to
restore a concrete sense of accountability in our government, and in our
country. In averting its eyes from the calumnies of the Clinton era, both
great and, in this case, puny, the Bush administration no doubt believed it
was acting wisely--not to mention downright nobly.

In the end, though, there
is something a little naive about believing that any administration could
begin anew without facing up to the facts about the
old.

JWR contributor Diana West is a columnist and editorial writer for the Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.

06/01/01: The bright side of the Jeffords defection05/29/01: Campus liberals should be more careful05/18/01: 'Honest Bill' Clinton and other Ratheresian Logic 05/11/01: Dodging balls, Bugs, and 'brilliance'05/04/01: Foot in mouth disease and little lost Tories04/20/01:The last classic Clinton cover-up04/20/01: D-Day, Schmee-Day
04/06/01: For heaven's sake, a little decency!
03/30/01: The sweet sound of slamming doors and clucking feminists 03/23/01: America's magazines and the 'ick-factor'03/09/01: Felony neglect03/02/01: Who's sorry now?02/23/01: 'Ecumenical niceness' and other latter-day American gifts to the world02/16/01: Elton and Eminem: Royal dirge-icist meets violent fantasist02/12/01: If only ...